trace-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits apply, what format the output takes, or whether results are paginated. The description provides basic functional intent but lacks operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. The description is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently explains the bidirectional nature of dependencies.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about return format, data structure, or typical use cases to be fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'outgoing' and 'incoming' which aligns with the direction enum values, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('external service dependencies'), specifying both outgoing and incoming dependencies. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_call_graph' or 'get_package_deps' by focusing specifically on service-level dependencies rather than code-level or package-level relationships.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through the mention of 'external service dependencies' and directional filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_map' or 'get_cross_service_impact'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.